The exemption under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is available to the entire official residence of a former Ruler, even if only a part of it is in his self-occupation and the rest has been let out.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the aforesaid three references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), at the instance of the Revenue.

2. The relevant assessment years in Reference No. 88 of 1980 are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessment year in Reference No. 41 of 1980 is 1975-76. In Reference No. 89 of 1980, the relevant assessment years are 1976-77 and 1977-78.

3. There is one common question of law involved in all these assessment years in respect of which these three references have been made and that is with regard to the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(19A) of the Act in respect of the rental income earned by the assessee during these assessment years from a part of the official residence known as Umed Bhawan, Kota, let out by the assessee while retaining the remaining portion of Umed Bhawan for self-occupation. The question is, whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption from income-tax under section 10(19A) of the Act in respect of the rental income so earned from a part of the palace known as Umed Bhawan. There is one more question only in respect of the assessment year 1973-74 relating to the applicability of section 52(2) of the Act in respect of the sale of some property by the assessee to one Budh Singh Bapna. The sale consideration in the sale deed has been shown as Rs. 1,30,000, which was found to be understated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the Tribunal has held that section 52(2) is not attracted since the transaction was genuine, and there is no material to show that the assessee received any additional amount towards sale consideration in that transaction from Budh Singh Bapna.

4. The questions of law referred for the decision of this court substantially on the above facts in these three references are the following :Reference No. 88 of 1980:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rental income of Rs. 42,722 in the assessment year 1973-74 and of Rs. 54,360 in the assessment year 1974-75 from Umed Bhawan, Kota, were exempt under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in this case ?"
Reference No. 89 of 1980:

"Whether, on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental income of Rs. 62,000 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 61,354 for the assessment year 1977-78 from Umed Bhawan, Kota, were exempt under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
Reference No. 41 of 1980:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that rental income of Rs. 42,038 from Umed Bhawan, Kota, was exempt under section 10(19A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"

5. So far as the first question relating to exemption claimed under section 10(19A) is concerned, there is a direct decision in CIT v. Bharatchandra Banjdeo (1985) 154 ITR 236 (MP) . It was held therein that it is not possible to split up one palace into parts for granting exemption only to that part in self-occupation of the ex-Ruler as his official residence and to deny the benefit of exemption to the other portion of the palace rented out by the Ruler, since the entire palace is declared as his official residence. Accordingly, it was held that even if only a part of the palace is in the self-occupation of the former Ruler and the rest has been let out, the exemption available under section 10(19A) will be available to the entire palace. No decision taking a contrary view has been cited before us. We do not find any good ground to depart from that view, when the view taken in that decision is undoubtedly a plausible view. In the case of a taxing statute, a plausible view in favour of the as